Mere omission to disclose minority does not estop the infant to avoid the contract, or give to the adversary party any right of action, either in law or equity.1 No estoppel can arise by reason of matter occurring after the transaction in question. Thus where A conveyed realty to B when a minor, and thereafter brought suit to have such deed set aside on the ground of fraud alleging that be was of age when such conveyance was made, he is not estopped to allege thereafter in a subsquent suit that he was a minor."Where the infant has made false representations as to his age no estoppel can arise where the other party is not in fact deceived thereby.3 So no estoppel can arise out of a representation of infancy made to the agent of the mortgagee and known to him to be false ;4 or where before his conveyance a minor testified,that he was of full age, it not being shown that grantee knew of and relied on such statement.5 Even where the adversary party is deceived, no estoppel can arise in an action at law,6 except where the Common Law is modified by statute.7 So a misrepresentation by an infant that his disability to contract has been removed by decree of court does not estop him from pleading infancy as a defense.8 In Kentucky the doctrine of estoppel seems to be applied in such cases, even at law.'

10 Smith v. Ry. Co., 91 Tenn. 221; 18 S. W. 546.

11 Newry, etc., Ry. v. Coombe, 3 Ex. 565; Northwestern Ry. v. Mc-Michael, 5 Ex. 114.

12 Dublin, etc., Ry. v. Black, 8 Ex. 181.

13 Leed, etc., Ry. v. Fearnley, 4 Ex. 26.

14 Northwestern Ry. v. McMichael, 5 Ex. 114.

15 Cork, etc., Ry. v. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935 (10 Ad. & E1). This case has been criticised, but on the question whether the act of retaining stock after majority was a ratification.

16 Mansur v. Pratt. 101 Mass. 60.

17 Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J.

Mar. (Ky.) 1; Roman v. Fry, 5 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 634.

1 Confederation Loan Association v. Kinnear, 23 Ont. App. 497; Davidson v. Young, 38 111. 145; Alvey v. Reed, 115 Ind. 148; 7 Am. St. Rep. 418; 17 N. E. 265; Price v. Jennings, 62 Ind. 1ll; Sewell v. Sewell, 92 Ky. 500; 36 Am. St. Rep. 606; 18 S. W. 162; Bailey v. Barnberger, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Baker v. Stone, 136 Mass. 405; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Stack v. Cavanaugh, 67 N. H. 149; 30 Atl. 350; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. St. 422; 60 Am. Rep. 354; 6 Atl. 384; Bible v. Wisecarver (Tenn. Ch. App.), 50 S. W. 670.

2 Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040.

3 Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278; 42 Am. Rep. 1; Bradshaw v. Van Winkle, 133 Ind. 134; 32 N. E. 877; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040; Charles v. Hasiedt, 51 N. J. Eq. 171; 26 Atl. 564.

4 Charles v. Hastedt, 51 X. J. Eq. 171; 26 Atl. 564.

5 Bradshaw v. Van Winkle, 133 Ind. 134; 32 N. E. 877.

6 Burdett v. Williams, 30 Fed. 697; Oliver v. McClelland, 21 Ala. 675; Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278; 42 Am. Rep. 1; Wieland v. Kobick, 110 111. 16; 51 Am. Rep. 676; Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky. 288; 3 S. W. 173; Wilson v. Wilson (Ky.), 50 S. W. 260; Merri-man v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; Folds v. Allardt. 35 Minn. 488; 29 N. W. 201; Conrad v. Lane. 26 Minn. 389; 37 Am. Rep. 412; 4 N. W. 695; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; 34 Am. Dec. 146; Houston v. Cooper, 3 N. J. L. 866; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Conroe v. Birdsall, 1 Johnson's Cases (N. Y.) 127; 1 Am. Dec. 105; Carolina, etc., Association v. Black, 119 N. C. 323; 25 S. E. 975; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio 156; 45 Am. Dec. 565; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79; 31 Am. Rep. 678; Eliot v. Eliot, 81 Wis. 295; 15 L. R. A. 259; 51 N. W. 81.

7 Dillon v. Burnham, 43 Kan. 77 ; 22 Pac. 1016. Thus in Kansas a minor who by representations that he is of full age. or by engaging in business as an adult, deceives the other party, cannot rescind. Dillon v. Burnham, 43 Kan. 77; 22 Pac. 1016.

8 Wilkinson v. Buster. 124 Ala. 574; 26 So. 940.

9 Damron v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 268; 96 Am. St. Rep. 453; 61 S. W. 459.

In equity, however, an infant, who by representations or by conduct, misleads the other party into believing that the infant is of full age, is estopped to allege his infancy;10 as where a minor obtained a settlement with his guardian by representing that he was of age,11 or where the infant in order to induce the purchaser to buy, has made affidavit that he was of age.12 In Minnesota it has been held that a minor is not estopped by his representation that he is of age to avoid a mortgage.13 Whether an infant who falsely represents himself as being of full age and thereby induces one to sell him chattels is liable on an action for fraud, is a question on which the authorities are in conflict. In the majority of cases it has been held that he is not liable ;14 but in other cases it has been held that he is liable.15 It has been held that if the infant has induced the adversary party to enter into the contract by a fraudulent representation as to the age of the infant, he must account for the consideration even if he has wasted it.10

10 Schmitheimer v. Eiseman, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 298; Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121; Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474, 484; 28 S. W. 189, 755; Hayes v. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq. 630; 7 Atl. 511; Pemberton, etc., Association v. Adams, 53 X. J. Eq. 258; 31 Atl. 280; Adams v. Fite, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 69; Harsein v. Cohen (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 977. On rehearing in Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474; 28 S. W. 189, the court on account of the insufficiency of the record finally on motion for rehearing remanded the case " in order that the lower court may rehear the case, unbound by anything said in the original opinion."

11 Hayes v. Parker, 41 X. J. Eq. 630; 7 Atl. 511.

12 Schmitheimer v. Eiseman. 7 Bush. (Ky.) 298; Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474, 484; 28 S. W. 189, 755.

13 Alt v. Groff, 65 Minn. 191; 68 N. W. 9. This case was brought at law, but the validity of the mortgage was raised by the answer and denied by the reply, and raised a question in equity.

14 Johnson v. Pie, 1 Lev. 169; 1 Sid. 258; 1 Keb. 905; Grove v. Nevill, 1 Keb. 778; Jennings v. Run-dall, 8 T. R. 335; Green v. Green-bank, 2 Marsh. 485; Price v. Hew-ett, 8 Exch. 146; Wright v. Leonard, 11 C. B. (X. S.) 258; De Roo v. Foster, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 272; Brown v. Dunham, 1 Root (Conn.) 272; Geer v. Hovy, 1 Root (Conn.) 179; Burns v. Hill, 19 Ga. 22; Slay-ton v. Barry, 175 Mass. 513; 78 Am. St. Rep. 510; 49 L. R. A. 560; 56 N. E. 574; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; Wilt v. Welsh, 6 Watts (Pa.) 9; Kilgore v. Jordan, 17 Tex. 341; Nash v. Jewett, 61 Vt. 501; 15 Am. St. Rep. 931; 4 L. R. A. 561; 18 Atl. 47; Gilson v. Spear, 38 Vt. 311; 88 Am. Dec. 659.

15 Rice v. Boyer. 108 Ind. 472; 58 Am. Rep. 53; 9 X. E. 420; Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N. H. 354; 47 Am. Rep. 209; Eaton v. Hill. 50 X. H. 2.35; 9 Am. Rep. 189; Fitts v. Hall, 9 X. H. 441; Wallace v. Morss, 5 Hill (X. Y.) 391.